Loading...
2000 06 27 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 27, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This 'meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler (arrived late), Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. D. Chairman Kirk introduced and welcomed City Attorney Kathy Jensen, Rutan and Tucker, who gave a brief background of her experience and history with the City. She then introduced Mr. John Ramirez who would be serving as the Assistant City Attorney, also with Rutan and Tucker who gave his background. E. Staff present: Acting City Attorney Kathy Jensen, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred. Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked that the approval of the Minutes for June 1 3, 200 and the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council for May 10, 2000, be continued. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue the approval of the Minutes. -- Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map ?9800, a request of KSL Desert Resorts, Inc. for' approval of the subdivision of 51.58 acres into two clubhouse lots, two future development lots, one golf course lot, two common lots and adjustment of four single family lots. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff recommended the deletion of Condition #65 to the Conditions of Approval. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the mail boxes kiosk would house all the mail boxes for this entire area. Staff stated the mail box kiosk will serve this gated community. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. 'Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, engineers for the project representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions and they had no problems with the Conditions of Approval as submitted. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, and no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 5. Commissioner Abels commended the applicant on their presentation. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked that the word "or" be deleted on Page 8, Item #7; Page 14, Item A. 1) change the word "and" to "or 28 feet". Condition #47 he questioned whether it should be written to denote when inspections would occur on a privately maintained street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there were no sidewalk accesses in this community and the condition talks about the . sidewalk access to the publically maintained street, and the only access they have to publically maintained streets is off site. Staff suggested the sentence read, "The City will conduct final C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved streets." Staff's concern is that they not have people moving into homes with partially completed streets. · Commissioner Tyler stated the condition did no't establish precise criteria for final inspection of the streets. Staff would rewrite the condition to be more clear. 7. Chairman Kirk asked that Condition #63 be clarified as to what staff was wanting to achieve. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that under that Section of the Code, they have separated into a different lot, the parking area and clubhouse and the Code require them to maintain the parking lot for the clubhouse and not some other use that may come onto the site. Staff went on to describe the different options. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners .Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-039 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29800, as amended. a. Condition #7: Delete the word "or" b. Condition #40.A. 1 .' Change the word "and" to "or". . c. Condition #47' Revise to read, "...only when the buildings have improved streets." d. Condition #65: Delete ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN' None. A. Environmental Assessment 99-386. C~eneral Plan Amendment ?000-065. Specific Plan 2000-046. and Tract Map ?9436; a request of Mainiero Smith and Associates for US, Homes for a recommendation to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; recommend approval of a General Plan Text Amendment to allow spacing less than 1,200 lineal feet for Primary Arterials in conjunction with a Corridor Master Plan for Traffic Signals; recommend approval of a Specific Plan for Eisenhower Corridor Master Plan of traffic signals; and recommend approval to subdivide 75.86 acres into 169 residential lots and other amenity lots to be located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive, east of Coachella Drive. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information 'contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated there appears to have been a previously approved tract for this site. Staff stated yes and some road improvements had been made at that time. Commissioner Tyler asked if he was correct that the developer would not be using any of these improvements. Staff stated he did not believe so. Staff added they would like to add a condition requiring Lots 69 'and Lot 79 be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance to require a 35 foot frontage oO cul-de-sac lots. 3. Senior Engineer 'Steve Speer gave a power point presentation on a Time Space Diagram explaining how signal coordination works, as it is staff's opinion that a full turn intersection is not needed at this location. The applicant proposes the full turn intersection and signal if needed and would be "invisible" if coordinated. It is staff's opinion that the General Plan Amendment would alter the City's vision of a resort residential environment. Even though the coordination is used only for the peak hours, off peak hours it would run free and add delay to traffic using Eisenhower Drive. 4. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain Page 3 of the Time Space Diagram. Staff introduced Frank Watanabe, DKS Associates, traffic engineer for Mainiero Smith and Associates who explained the Time Space Diagram. 5. Commissioner Butler asked for a clarification on the sensitive intersection shown on Exhibit 3 of the Diagram. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they are existing full turn intersections. Once you have an existing full turn intersection and it meets warrants, you could have a signal at this location, unless the City Council took a different alternative.' Commissioner Butler asked if this would compound the problem. Staff stated no. Even if all the sensitive locations were added in this signal time coordination, it still works. Commissioner Butler asked if there had been any dialog with the applicant to move the signal to another location possibly sharing it with the adjacent property owner. Staff stated C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-O0.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 yes, and staff believes it is their Plan B, which is staff's preference, but the applicant has consistently stated they do not want to share a signal. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any Arterials streets in the City that conform to a timing diagram as this. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the County received grant money to coordinate Washington Street from Calle Tampico to Avenue 42. There was a break in the Time Space Diagram as Highway 111 could not be made to fit into the time spacing. The County had a problem keeping it working and the City received complaints that the signal would not change to green as promptly as it did before the signal was coordinated. Staff does not believe this timing program is working anywhere on Washington Street at this time. Mr. Watanabe stated his firm is coordinating signals in La Quinta. Washington Street is being looked at as well as Highway 111. They. are working with CVAG to create a signal coordination program throughout the Valley. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated that Exhibit 3 shows existing and future sensitive intersections and asked who came up with those designations. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff did. Commissioner Tyler questioned the Diagram that showed some signals as existing and some proposed and in some instances the signals marked proposed, are existing. 8. Commissioner Abels questioned the distance between the intersections and suggested signals. Staff stated that is why the City has the spacing requirements they have. The alternative is that if you could coordinating the signals you could theoretically make them invisible to the traffic that is using the street. Commissioner Abels asked if there had been any traffic problems reported on Eisenhower Drive. Staff stated that when complaints are received staff requests a warrant study at the intersections to see if they reach warrants and then they look into what will solve the problems. You cannot solve everyone's problem to the degree they want it solved. Discussion followed regarding traffic problems. 9. Chairman Kirk stated that in terms of how we measure success, he assumes that the amount of green time is the measurement of success. Mr. Watanabe stated it is green time, but you actually are looking at a reduction in overall congestion and improvement C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 in overall travel time and air quality. It has been prOven that a car standing still produces more carbon monoxide than a car moving down the road efficiently. The object is to get the cars down the street, but not necessarily fast. 10. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero Smith and Associates, representing the applicant gave an overall explanation of the project. He stated they were not asking for a special request for this property. This Corridor Master Plan (CMP) is an umbrella tool the City could use for circumstances that might exist not only here, but elsewhere in the City. He stated they were not asking for a traffic signal, but wanted a full access turning movement. If the intersection ever reaches warrants they are willing to place the money needed in the homeowners' association account to make it available should a signal be required in the future. Laguna de la Paz, the development to the east, has twice as many homes as they have and is working effectively without a traffic signal. The traffic projections appear to be decreasing in terms of projections of . buildout. The General Plan originally stated there would be 24,000 cars a day on Eisenhower Drive in the 1992 Update. Currently, there are 7-8,000 cars a day during peak months. The new General Plan is expecting to double to about 1 5,000 cars a day on Eisenhower Drive which means we are operating at Service Level A, well into the future with full buildout of the community. Their site has no other access they can be guaranteed to use. Staff's condition that they redesign the project for an egress only, to be relative to .Coachella Drive which is about 200 feet from their property line, would require them to negotiate with their neighbor to gain that type of access. They have no control over that access and there is no guarantee they can gain that access. He went on to discuss the five special circumstances they believe would allow the Planning Commission and City Council to approve this request. Staff had stated that if they could come up with a Corridor Master Plan for this street, then a lot of the questions would be easier to answer in the future. For instance, if Laguna de la Paz reached . 15,000 cars a day on Eisenhower Drive and requested a signal because they were meeting warrants, the CMP would allow the signal, even though the intersection, is not 1,200 feet from Washington Street. It is workable and the Time Space Diagram C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd (~ Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 indicates it can be reasonably coordinated, and this is the kind of tool they believe will help the City. Their project consisting of 1 69 lots, with less than 1,700 cars a day, will not meet the warrants for a traffic signal at this intersection. If the speeds go down to 40 mph, it is even less likely to meet warrants. The project proposed to the south of their project is a time Share and while their project could be redesigned for a shared access that would have a quality feel to it, again, it is not something they can control. They estimate that 80% of the traffic leaving their project would want to go left at the intersection. 85% of the traffic would result in 275 miles of extra travel to go right and out to Washington Street; 100,000 extra miles a year and that is if they can make a u-turn or use the shared access. They have been told that because of the design of that intersection they may not even be able to utilize that u-turn, but may have to go down to Avenue 52 which would be 386,000 extra miles a year. These numbers .tell part of the value of having a full access as they propose. It does meet the 1,200 foot rule between signals, although not -- 1,200 feet between all intersections. They prepared this CMP because staff stated the access does not meet the City's General Plan. In their estimation the findings are a little draconian in that the CMP would be materially detrimental to the health, safety, welfare of the community. The CMP words do not fit the action. This is a tool that gives the Planning Commission the ability to look at these things on the basis of how a CMP works and functions and not necessarily based on an arbitrary standard which is not founded in traffic technology. 1,200 feet between signalized intersections does not exist anywhere else in this Valley as a requirement. This is not to say La Quinta should not have higher standards, they love La Quinta and are really proud of the quality of life it has generated, but there are other issues that deal with that image of urbaneness which was another objection raised by staff. They believe a signal at this location saves 100,000 miles a year in travel, and will not materially change the travel times, but in fact improve the travel time along Eisenhower Drive and therefore, is good; This developer in developing a community of homes in the 9400,000 price range, wants a viable access where people can arrive and leave and not having to drive through -- a parking lot belonging to a time share project, that they do not have any control over. If they could develop a quality access with KSL they would look at it, but it would take about 3/4 of an acres to do this. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 1 1. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if they had contacted KSL regarding the shared access. Mr.. Roos stated no, as they thought they had staff's support on the full intersection. Staff's objection is not the signal, but the loss of the urban neighborhood. He went on to present three alternatives to solve the problem. He stated they basically agree with all the Conditions except #57 as it restricts them to a right turn only. Staff clarified their intent was to let them have the left turn into the project, but not the left turn out. 12. Commissioner Abels questioned which location would be their main access. Mr. Roos stated that at this point they would , continue with their original access, but it would not have a left turn out. 1 3. Mr. Roos stated the tract is an attempt to take advantage of the camelbaCk ridges as a background. They are pulling the houses away from the toe of slope and collecting.drainage and debris at that point and will have some type of backyar~d Iow wall that maintains the water and maintain it as open space. They are collecting a series of debris basins that are open space around both the perimeter and through the center and a major lake feature in the middle. The center lots will have no walls to allow a. flowing movement. They have 'a couple archaeological sites that will be protected, or preserved. All lots exceed the minimum lot size and are about three feet lower on the average than Laguna de la Paz. The houses are intended to be single story.' The entire site is 190 acres and they will only develop 82 acres with the remainder being left open, or dedicated to the Mountains Conservancy, or some such organization. The streets are single loaded, with 32 foot widths. 14. Commissioner Abels asked if any comments had been received from Fish and Game. Mr. Roos stated they have indicated they have to work with them regarding any streambed alterations. All of the Fringe-Toed property is located on the other side of the mountain. They are working with staff regar, ding whether or not a fence is needed for the sheep. Commissioner Abels asked about the trail. Mr. Roos stated one of the archaeological sites is located on the trail and is recommended not to be disturbed. Staff recommends the trail be closed. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-O0.wpd ~; Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 15. Chairman Kirk asked if Fish and Game had been to the site and found any signs of a streambed. Mr. Roos stated they had tried to contact Fish and Game representative, but were unable to get any final resolution. They hope to have this before the City Council meeting. 16. Commissioner Tyler asked if any lots would have two story homes; if not, would the applicant have any objection to a condition being added prohibiting any two story homes abutting Laguna de la Paz. Mr. Roos stated they would not have any objection. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant was comfortable with all the conditions relating to the sheep. Mr. Roos stated they have to put in some fencing, landscaping, and glass and it may be overkill, but they plan to design a landScape that meets the requirements. 17. Mr. Roos again, introduced' Mr. Frank Watanaby, DKS Associates, traffic engineer, who explained the signal synchronization process. He stated they are currently coordinating signals for the entire Coachella Valley. Close to 300 signals will be coordinated within the next couple months. As discussed, signal spacing has a lot of factors involved. They took a look at Eisenhower Drive and evaluated the 1,200 foot requirement and found they could make this analysis work in coordination, or progression as you go down the roadway under the 1,.200 foot mark. They also looked at other factors such as reducing the congestion, improve travel time, air quality, efficiency and safety of the Corridor. History has shown that if you place signals in invisible spots and distances sometimes even less than 1,200 feet, it can work. He continued on with the assets of coordinated signals and stated the additional signal would not impact the Corridor. You can make it work with the signal in place. The reduction of the length does work. They are showing a 22 second band width, which is the amount of time from point "A' to point "B", and this is a good time. 1 8. Chairman Kirk asked if all sCenarios were with the proposed signal. Mr. Watanaby stated they looked at the street as it is. Chairman Kirk stated he wanted to know the difference with and without the signal. The first alternative does not have the signal and bands are in the Iow 20's which shows no travel time improvement, but it shows it can work with or without the signal. So the question is, C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 is it invisible in terms of progression, and yes it it. The green time that is available through the band through the length of the street. Alternative 1 does not contain the signal and it has band widths in the Iow 20's. Alternative 2, adds the signal at Eisenhower Drive at the U. S. Home entrance and band widths are now in the mid 20's to 30's which is a slight improvement. Staff added in some of the other sensitive intersections.. Chairman Kirk asked if the site would work better with the intersection, or worse. Mr. Watanaby stated it would be better because with even more intersections they still work. When you have control of the Corridor and intersections, you have better progression of the roadway. The goal is to keep the cars in a tight progression. 19. Mr. Mike Lutz, President of U. S. Home, Central California Division, stated they wanted to create a very upscale community that competes with'the country club lifestyle. They would prefer to not have the signal, but the full turn access. Laguna de la Paz has two intersections and for them to tell property owners in the $400,000 price range that they have to share an entrance with a parking lot for a condominium project does not lend itself to being an upscale project. KSL is not ready to develop the project and what happens if they never develop the property. 20. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. 21. Ms. Beverly Lyons, 48-621 Paseo Tarazo, stated the Planning Commission should consider her proposal for sharing this beautiful portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains with the people of La Quinta as well as the wildlife that call it home. In 1 998, when she Was looking to purchase a home, she consulted with the City as to the long range plan for the adjacent property. She was sent a map and told there was a planned development complete with named streets for the adjacent 23 parcels. She then bought her home. Now she finds herself facing the City regarding this plan. She would ask that the Planning Commission require the current applicant to leave the northern strip, which is surrounded by the Santa Rosa Mountains, as open space and natural habitat as this is the home for many species of animals. Also, she asked they consider a 100 foot setback from the mountains to provide a wildlife corridor as well as access from Eisenhower Drive to the wildlife preserve to the north. The use of the corridor would be discretionary as to use and predicated on the presence of the Big C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 Horn Sheep, or other endangered, or habitat sensitive wildlife in the. area. It could be fenced off from domestic predators and destructive humans, or be closed as endangered wildlife presence dictates. In the absence of developer agreements, she respectfully requests the Planning Commission take a leadership role in support of the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan by declaring eminent domain over the areas described above. 22. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 23. planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Condition #76 is inconsistent with the environmental document and staff's recommends the following change, "The three remainder parcels shown on Tentative Tract Map 29436 shall be deed restricted as permanent open space prior to recordation of the' Final Tract Map." This condition should replace the existing Condition #76. 24. Mr. Roos asked if this would preclude them from deeding it to an organization such as the Mountain Conservancy. City Attorney Kathy Jensen stated the point is that the City does not want to take the dedication. As drafted on Page 24 of the staff report, it refers only to a deed restriction which does not involve a conveyance to a third party. The City has no objection to a different entity taking the hillside property. 25. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with Mr. Lutz that this is a beautiful piece of property. The issues are several. He has no problem with the tract map itself as long as a condition is added requiring only one story houses next to the Laguna de la Paz perimeter. A lot of time has been given discussing the access and frankly,'he is not sure what prompted this CMP. He sees it as a large "red herring" and a confusion factor because the applicant has stated they do not even want a signal at this point and it also has numerous errors which causes some credibility problems. He agrees they need proper access to this site and they appear to have made some headway, but they really need to have full turn movement and he believes it could be done without having such a document as this that covers everything. One of the issues he has is that one of the findings in the staff report make reference back to the General Plan, but it has an awful lot of subjective " C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ! ! Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 terms contained in it. It talks about appropriate access control. What is that? What is the urban design La Quinta people want? Again very subjective. He believes this development needs a full turn access and he does not agree that the spacing cannot be 1,199 feet, and must be 1,200 feet. He cannot agree that this can be denied when Laguna de la Paz has full turn movements less than 1,200 feet from Washington Street. 26. Commissioner Butler stated he had some concerns with the traffic study and now after hearing both sides, he agrees, the applicant's assessment of the entrances is adequate. To further delay this project to work on an additional, or alternative entrance without any assurance that the adjacent property owner will be willing to do so, is not right. Then he became concerned about the environmental aspect and concerned that Fish and Game in their letter regarding the streambed and fencing for the Big Horn Sheep. In order to protect all these species, we have to protect them and all the historical sites. Little by little we take away some of the accesses to the areas that people have enjoyed. Are we doing this for the good of the all, or the good of the few? Hopefully, in this instance, it is for the good of the all, that this area is isolated. All in all he believes the project has found its place and he likes the concept as it does offer an alternative to a higher end development without a golf course. He is curious about the lake as to whether or not it is just a recreational feature, or what. Mr. Lutz stated it is a passive recreation. 27. Commissioner Abels stated that when he first reviewed the project he was upset about the traffic study, but after heari, ng the presentation, he agrees with the other Commissioners concurring with the applicant. A full access should be allowed at the entrance as this is an upscale community that is well designed. 28. Chairman Kirk asked how the open space area leading up to the lake would be landscaped. Mr. Roos stated that conceptually it would be a combination of a dry streambed look, desert landscape, and the common open space weaves in through the back of the project that will serve for retention, de-siltation and open space. .They might consider some active water, but have not progressed that far. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-00.wpd ] ~- Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 29. Chairman Kirk asked if the project had been conditioned to be sure it is xeriscape or has a desert landscaping theme in the common areas. Staff stated no. Chairman' Kirk asked if the Commission was in favor of having a condition added. Commissioners stated they agreed. Chairman Kirk stated he is very impressed with the project and appreciates the idea of open space. In regard to the access issue, he does not think the material presented, or the presentation enhanced their understanding, or appreciation of the project. When the applicant referred to the table on the design standards, he pointed out a footnote that indicated that unique situations can allow for changes, that, of course, related to the horizontal curve radius and not the intersection spacing. As Commissioner Tyler pointed out, the City's General Plan does have some unclear areas, but one area it is clear about is the intersection spacing. Therefore, staff has done a reasonable good job explaining why this intersection spacing is a good thing to maintain, and at the same time he is disturbed by the process. The culmination of discussions between staff and the applicant resulted in this CMP. If this is a document that will be used in the future, it needs to be done better. It is his understanding that the result of this study was that if the signal is somewhat invisible City staff would support the request. Although it is difficult to interpret the results given the apples to oranges comparisons, the study showed that this full access could be implemented without increasing travel time. 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-040 recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 99-386) according to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 31. Chairman Kirk asked for legal counsel's opinion in regard to the General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Text Amendment would require a Corridor Master Plan for any applicant that came along. Is there a' way to condition this application without changing the process before the General Plan update process is completed, when it could be addressed more comprehensively. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] 3 Planning Commission Minutes _ June 27, 2000 City Attorney Kathy Jensen stated that if the Planning Commission is going to create an exception, it has to be a City-wide exception that anybody could come in and apPly for. Chairman Kirk stated exceptions have been made in cases where drainage physically affected intersection spacing; how was that accomplished? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that at those locations there was a drainage channel you could not get across unless you built another bridge to get down to a point that was acceptable to enter the street. Instead of requiring them to build a bridge, we allowed them to take access on the street. There have been situations where there were unique geological feature that created a severe hardship. Chairman Kirk asked if that same rationale could not be used in this instance given the unique curve radius, development pattern and pre-existing access points. He is not sure he would want another CMP submitted if it did not help them to make decisions. Staff stated it is a technical document and it is a document that if you are going to build the street up with a lot signals, you mostly likely want it to be coordinated and that was the purpose of the study, to determine whether or not it could be accomplished. Mr. Watanaby proved it could be done, but until you go through the exercise, you do not know the answer. This was only intended to be required of an applicant if they wanted a signal at less than the standard spacing. If there is an existing CMP for the corridor and an applicant requests an additional signal, then they would only have to update the CMP to see if it could be accomplished. It would be a much simpler~task. 32. Chairman Kirk stated the alternative is to approve the General Plan Text Amendment to require a CMP and what he was hoping was to justify the reduction without setting up a process they are not happy with. Mr. Roos stated that if the Commission looks at the language of the General Plan Text Amendment they initially submitted, it did not include the CMP. The language was to include a superscript that stated, "unique situations may'require exemption, for example, the adoption of a Specific Corridor Plan, existing intersection spacing precludes efficient access solutions, significant increase in vehicles miles traveled, no physical alternative access, projected traffic lines lower than maximum for street type." This was written specifically for this situation. Other issues could be added to allow the City to use the CMP in other situations. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 33. Chairman Kirk stated they may have a suggestion on a change to the General Plan Text that may need to be tightened up during the General Plan update, based on whether or not the City Council approves this. He asked if the text originally submitted by the applicant, fit the need here. 34. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with staff that this may be going to far. Unless you can control it entirely, you may not want to do this. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in the original General Plan, the spacing on Arterial streets was 1,320 feet, a quarter mile. The City was always struggling with this figure as property lines do not always fall on quarter mile intervals and it became 'difficult t° get intersections to comply with the' General Plan. Therefore, when the General Plan was updated in 1992, it was decreased down to 1,200 to allow flexibility. What this does is allow you to have three signals in a mile. When you do the math you can take the spacing down to 1,056 feet and still get three signals in a mile. Therefore is you are trying to control the number of signals in a mile, in general terms, you might consider a number such as 1,0.50. Theoretically, you would not get that extra fourth signal in a mile of street. 35. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a problem beCause they keep mixing the distances for intersections and signals and they may not be the same; particularly if there will never be a signal. Can the two be separated? Staff stated this is in regard to full turn movements which have the potential to meet warrants for a signal. There is one issue about this project and that is there may never be enough homes at this location to cause this to meet warrants. 36. Chairman Kirk asked if staff's scenario using the 1,050 figure, would help the applicant. Staff stated it was very close. As difficult as the CMP is, and as poor as it was presented, it is an exercise that needs to be done if you want to have the signals coordinated. 37. Chairman Kirk stated that what the applicant suggested is a -- subscript to the minimum intersection spacing which provides for all sorts of reasons for reduction in the minimum spacing requirement that everyone acknowledges is very permissive. What staff is recommending is that in all cases, if we do this, we require a CMP, or an amendment to an existing one. Therefore, what is the Commission's preference. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 38. Commissioner Butler Stated that if you go with staff's recommendation and then through the General Plan update, revisit this issue. Would this work for staff so as not to bec°me a problem on future applications? 39. Chairman Kirk suggested they go with this specific recommendation and make sure it is a priority in the General Plan update to see what should be done and maybe develop some specific quantifiable and objective criteria. 40. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-041 recommending to the City Council approval of a General Plan Text Amendment to require a Corridor Master Plan of Traffic Signals to allow spacing less than identified in the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 41. Chairman Kirk stated that since there is no process, do we have to approve a CMP for Eisenhower Drive. What the Commission has done is set up a process to encourage the development of a CMP, but' is the Planning Commission or City Council obligated to approve the Specific Plan. Staff stated the Eisenhower CMP does need some work to make it correct. In order to move the project forward, staff accepted the Plan in its current state. Approval of this document could be deferred to a future date, but before the off-site street plans are approved. The Commission is concerned with approving the document and do not feel comfortable with it. Chairman Kirk stated the suggested General Plan Amendment change was to allow the submittal of a CMP, but not necessarily approve the CMP. The process was implemented to allow submittal of a CMP, not to approve one. 42. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to table Specific Plan 2000-046 for the Eisenhower Corridor MaSter Plan. Unanimously approved. 43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-042 recommending to the 'City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29436, subject to the conditions as amended: C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] ~ Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 Condition #56: Amended to read, "The City will conduct final inspections of homes ...... only when the buildings have improved streets." Condition #57.A.: Modified to read, "A street at Eisenhower Drive shall be a full turn movement." Condition #58: Amend to read, "The applicant shall provide predominately desert landscaping and ...... " Condition #76:. Amend to read, "The three remainder parcels shown on Tentative Tract Map 29436 shall be deed restricted as permanent open space prior to recordation of the final tract map."' Condition #77: Add, "Single family houses on Lots 4-38 not to exceed 22 feet in height, shall be allowed adjacent to Laguna de' la Paz. Condition #79: If a new signal is installed at the main entrance, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signal including hardware interconnect to the Coachella Drive and conduit with pull rope to the main entrance providing access to Laguna de la Paz. Condition #80: If a new signal is installed at the main entrance the applicant shall enter into an agreement prior to final map approval to fund the operating, maintenance, and replacement costs to the signal including a proportionate share of the signal coordination sYstem. The applicant shall assign the Agreement to the homeowners' association as a funding resPonsibility of the. association for as long as a signal Provides traffic control on Eisenhower Drive. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a repOrt of the Council meeting of June 20, 2000. B. Chairman Kirk asked if a review of the Highway 111 Specific Plan and Village should be agendized per the comments made at the joint meeting with the City Council. Following discussion, staff was dir. ected to prepare a timeline for discussion of these'issues. C :\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2000 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held July 11, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. on June 27, 2000. Respectfully submitted, ~e~,-y~J. ~,~wyer, Exel~utive Secretary City ~~Quinta, California C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-27-OO.wpd ] 8